cedar creek
Banned
The non-resident antlerless tag is a large enough loop hole; considering Iowa's laws on party hunting!
risto2351
Well-Known Member
Buddy got this from Dawn Pettengill some other probably did also:
Dear Friends and Neighbors,
Sorry for the delay in getting this to you! The legislative email was down off and on all weekend and is up now and I'm taking this as my opportunity!
Remember the Rubik's Cube? As we go to the different communities and talk to our constituents about their priorities and concerns, each concern puts a Rubik's cube up in our brains and we start working to solve it. Try this, no that doesn't work...move it this way, no that doesn't work either, okay how about this? You can imagine the scope and number of cubes up there, but luckily our brains are made to be able to juggle and in this case work to solve many things at once.
Here's an example: For several years, I have been contacted by a number of families in our district about their children not being able to hunt their own property. One is even a Century Farm. The children are part owners of their farms, but have moved out of state. During harvest, the children come home on weekends to help and would also like to hunt. It IS their property too, but because there is a limit on non-resident landowners anysex tags set by the Legislature, they can't. "This is like having a timeshare on a beach front property in Florida, but you can't use the beach." - Sen. Kapucian's line. How true!
Each General Assembly, I have submitted and tried to work a bill on their behalf. Each time, I work the Rubik's Cube in a little different way to get it to go through and have had no luck. Last year, we required the DNR to do a deer study on the herd and the economic impacts to the state and local economies. Between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Study and the DNR's Deer Study, I found a couple of new solutions to my constituent's requests.
Facts about the Non-Resident Landowners: They own 21% of Iowa's farmland. Their investment into our state is 24 billion dollars. They pay property taxes, invest over 2 billion in equipment, supplies and labor. Plus, they lease to many young farmers giving them an opportunity. Many are from Iowa, but for whatever reason, have moved to another state. They tried to purchase almost 12,000 anysex tags last year at $545.00 each. The cap is at 6000 (2.5%) and set by the Legislature. The DNR refunded almost 3 million dollars for because of the cap. 98% of the time, they hunt their own property. And when they come to our state, they spend an average of $695.00 each visit.
Facts about the Anysex Licenses: We sold 227,000 to Residents. 40% were urban hunters, 60% rural. Total licenses sold 233,000. Non-resident's had 6000 or 2.5% of the 233,000. The DNR sets the number of resident licenses and the Legislature sets the non-resident.
After getting those facts, I got a little sidetracked from my constituent's needs and saw money sitting on the table nobody was picking up. An untapped market, if you will. Supply is not meeting the demand. No fee increases, no tax increases, people wanting to buy something we have, but aren't selling. With the budget situation we are in, an extra $3.3 million into our coffers and an extra $4.2 into the local economies looks pretty good. So I put an amendment on the DNR Omnibus bill to increase the Non-Resident Landowners Anysex Deer Tags from 6,000 to 12,000. It seemed like a win/win to me. We have so much property damage from deer. All the things we are throwing under the bus because we don't have the money, I thought $3.3 million from 6,000 deer, who would probably jump under the bus without our help, was good and had a chance of getting it through for my constituents.
I talked to my caucus and have received many calls and emails about the amendment. At the end of the day, I don't know if it will go through or not. Another Representative gave me the idea of a resident transferring a tag to a non-resident family member, which does solve my constituent's problem, so I had that drafted and filed. No money to it, but it does solve the problem. Sometimes you can take your eyes off of the thing you're trying to do and attempt to solve several of those Rubik's cubes at once. We will see what happens with it. Today, the bill number changed again, third time. And I had to get the bill drafters working on amendments to the new number...if you aren't watching, you can get bamboozled by the "Moving Walnut" game too.
The last Legislative coffee was this past weekend. We had a good turnout. In April sometime, Sen. Kapucian and I will have post-session forums. Thank you to all who gave us their facilities to have a coffee, the attendees who have given their feedback and to Senator Kapucian for being there. It takes all of us to have a good government. Your participation is key!
Also, many thanks to Faith Baptist Church in Vinton for their "Friends Day" on Sunday. Senator Grassley even made it! We had a wonderful time.
Enjoy the nice weather!
Dawn
Dear Friends and Neighbors,
Sorry for the delay in getting this to you! The legislative email was down off and on all weekend and is up now and I'm taking this as my opportunity!
Remember the Rubik's Cube? As we go to the different communities and talk to our constituents about their priorities and concerns, each concern puts a Rubik's cube up in our brains and we start working to solve it. Try this, no that doesn't work...move it this way, no that doesn't work either, okay how about this? You can imagine the scope and number of cubes up there, but luckily our brains are made to be able to juggle and in this case work to solve many things at once.
Here's an example: For several years, I have been contacted by a number of families in our district about their children not being able to hunt their own property. One is even a Century Farm. The children are part owners of their farms, but have moved out of state. During harvest, the children come home on weekends to help and would also like to hunt. It IS their property too, but because there is a limit on non-resident landowners anysex tags set by the Legislature, they can't. "This is like having a timeshare on a beach front property in Florida, but you can't use the beach." - Sen. Kapucian's line. How true!
Each General Assembly, I have submitted and tried to work a bill on their behalf. Each time, I work the Rubik's Cube in a little different way to get it to go through and have had no luck. Last year, we required the DNR to do a deer study on the herd and the economic impacts to the state and local economies. Between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Study and the DNR's Deer Study, I found a couple of new solutions to my constituent's requests.
Facts about the Non-Resident Landowners: They own 21% of Iowa's farmland. Their investment into our state is 24 billion dollars. They pay property taxes, invest over 2 billion in equipment, supplies and labor. Plus, they lease to many young farmers giving them an opportunity. Many are from Iowa, but for whatever reason, have moved to another state. They tried to purchase almost 12,000 anysex tags last year at $545.00 each. The cap is at 6000 (2.5%) and set by the Legislature. The DNR refunded almost 3 million dollars for because of the cap. 98% of the time, they hunt their own property. And when they come to our state, they spend an average of $695.00 each visit.
Facts about the Anysex Licenses: We sold 227,000 to Residents. 40% were urban hunters, 60% rural. Total licenses sold 233,000. Non-resident's had 6000 or 2.5% of the 233,000. The DNR sets the number of resident licenses and the Legislature sets the non-resident.
After getting those facts, I got a little sidetracked from my constituent's needs and saw money sitting on the table nobody was picking up. An untapped market, if you will. Supply is not meeting the demand. No fee increases, no tax increases, people wanting to buy something we have, but aren't selling. With the budget situation we are in, an extra $3.3 million into our coffers and an extra $4.2 into the local economies looks pretty good. So I put an amendment on the DNR Omnibus bill to increase the Non-Resident Landowners Anysex Deer Tags from 6,000 to 12,000. It seemed like a win/win to me. We have so much property damage from deer. All the things we are throwing under the bus because we don't have the money, I thought $3.3 million from 6,000 deer, who would probably jump under the bus without our help, was good and had a chance of getting it through for my constituents.
I talked to my caucus and have received many calls and emails about the amendment. At the end of the day, I don't know if it will go through or not. Another Representative gave me the idea of a resident transferring a tag to a non-resident family member, which does solve my constituent's problem, so I had that drafted and filed. No money to it, but it does solve the problem. Sometimes you can take your eyes off of the thing you're trying to do and attempt to solve several of those Rubik's cubes at once. We will see what happens with it. Today, the bill number changed again, third time. And I had to get the bill drafters working on amendments to the new number...if you aren't watching, you can get bamboozled by the "Moving Walnut" game too.
The last Legislative coffee was this past weekend. We had a good turnout. In April sometime, Sen. Kapucian and I will have post-session forums. Thank you to all who gave us their facilities to have a coffee, the attendees who have given their feedback and to Senator Kapucian for being there. It takes all of us to have a good government. Your participation is key!
Also, many thanks to Faith Baptist Church in Vinton for their "Friends Day" on Sunday. Senator Grassley even made it! We had a wonderful time.
Enjoy the nice weather!
Dawn
ironwood
Active Member
Nationally the number is very low. As we move forward and the percentage of hunters drops we coulds all be looking at some hard times.
BW
Member
Don't be too hard on Dawn Pettengill, she is a very avid supporter of the Right to Carry and Purchase firearms without having to beg your sheriff for a permit. She is actually a legislator that listens to her constituants and cares about a great many things including making common sense business decisions with tax payors money and not wasting it. Not many around you can say that about. Personally I believe our resources could have handled the increase to 12,000 NR tags at least 2-3 years ago. I'm surprised it has not happened yet. We all fought the fight to keep it limited for sevearal years because of our fear of outffiters and losing our little glory hole of hunting. But by allowing more people in to Iowa to share our passions, we may help to save it.
scottonbuck
Well-Known Member
Its pretty easy to stand back and say that we should open the state to more non residents when you live in the northern part of the state. Here in Southern Iowa we have the bulls eye on our back and a line thousand of people long just itching to by ground in this part of the state. If this quota would be increased I would definally be out of ground to hunt in a hurry. So I will fight this increase to my last breath my kid's hunting future depends on what we do today. It is already very tough to gain access in these parts now unless you have deep pockets. Not all parts of the state are created equal.
Hardwood11
It is going to be a good fall!
BW: I would agree, and with every state in US with the exception of North Dakota, in poor financial shape, Iowa will look at alternative $ sources. I don't blame the locals for fighting this, but ultimately, money is needed as this is a guaranteed source of additional revenue.
Iowabowtech
Active Member
It'll be interesting to see what happens with sustainable funding in November. If passed, I think tags as an income source will be a lot less attractive to many.
Most iowa resident hunters would much rather see them raise the price of resident tags $20 than sell 6000 more non-resident tags.
Non-residents bought over 14,000 tags in 2009 if you include antlerles tags and non residents also recieve an antlerless tag free when drawing an any-sex tag.So it seems to me we would have in the neighborhood of 28,000 NR tags sold.WAY TOO MANY.
I suggest the lower the number and raise the price double.
Non-residents bought over 14,000 tags in 2009 if you include antlerles tags and non residents also recieve an antlerless tag free when drawing an any-sex tag.So it seems to me we would have in the neighborhood of 28,000 NR tags sold.WAY TOO MANY.
I suggest the lower the number and raise the price double.
MN2IAGuy
Active Member
I believe that if you asked most residents of Iowa... since most of them are not deer hunters... that they would be more rational about what is realistic to expect a NR to pay for a license.... Since NR hunters bring in so much addtional money to the local economies and the DNR I think that many residents would be in favor of adding more NR licenses..... By the way, we pay for the doe license whether we want one or not.....
Hardwood11
It is going to be a good fall!
Archery95--Your comment "we should let non-residents vote...they seem to know what is best for Iowa. LOL"
Same applies to Iowans who fish in Minnesota. A few years ago Minnesota was going to lower the walleye limit from 6 to 4 per day. Several Iowa residents who fish in Minnesota or who own lake homes in Minnesota, wrote in to Outdoor News and said it was unfair and that they would not come to Minnesota anymore if they could "only" keep 4 walleyes. Believe it or not, Minnesota listened to the (Iowans) and other non-residents because they spend a lot of money in our state, and our economy is dependent on tourism.
They sure got blasted in the paper by Minnesota residents (referring to Iowa fisherman as limit happy and also referencing Iowa's high priced deer tags.) Similar to how us non-residents get blasted by Iowa residents when we ask for more tags, or the ability to hunt deer on the property we own...LOL
Same applies to Iowans who fish in Minnesota. A few years ago Minnesota was going to lower the walleye limit from 6 to 4 per day. Several Iowa residents who fish in Minnesota or who own lake homes in Minnesota, wrote in to Outdoor News and said it was unfair and that they would not come to Minnesota anymore if they could "only" keep 4 walleyes. Believe it or not, Minnesota listened to the (Iowans) and other non-residents because they spend a lot of money in our state, and our economy is dependent on tourism.
They sure got blasted in the paper by Minnesota residents (referring to Iowa fisherman as limit happy and also referencing Iowa's high priced deer tags.) Similar to how us non-residents get blasted by Iowa residents when we ask for more tags, or the ability to hunt deer on the property we own...LOL
I don't think your example of Iowan that own a cabin In Minnesota is comparable.I am sure those people spend a lot of money in the communities.If I had a cabin on a lake up there I would be up there most every weekend and half my vacation time from Memorial day till Labor day.As for as non-resident hunters coming to Iowa for a week or maybe 2.They don't spend much.Either they hunt with an outfitter that supplies food and transportation or they bring a camper and there own food and other supplies.I seriously doubt anyone coming to Iowa to hunt for a week will spend $100 in the community for a weeks hunt.
Tourism is 100x more important to Minnesota than it is to Iowa.Minnesota's whole economy is based on tourism in most communities.Iowa's economy is based on agriculture.By raising the number of NR tags or giving NRLO free or more tags does nothing for our economy.What you will end up seeing is more and more land bought up by NR and taken out of production.Thus....hurting our economy along with reducing the amount of land Iowans have to hunt.The number of deer taken of NR owned land will drop and in the end the DNR raises the number of antlerless tags to offset that.Its a circle that has no benifit for Iowa.To prove my point,back in the early 90's we had deer number problems..no late rifle season.....no November antlerless season....no limitless antlerless tags in southern Iowa.Then The DRN started to allow NR deer hunting.1000's of acres were bought up by NRs and not many deer were taken off those acres.The problems started.I seriously believe that all the problems we have with the deer herd in 2010 funnel back to when NR were allowed to hunt here.
Tourism is 100x more important to Minnesota than it is to Iowa.Minnesota's whole economy is based on tourism in most communities.Iowa's economy is based on agriculture.By raising the number of NR tags or giving NRLO free or more tags does nothing for our economy.What you will end up seeing is more and more land bought up by NR and taken out of production.Thus....hurting our economy along with reducing the amount of land Iowans have to hunt.The number of deer taken of NR owned land will drop and in the end the DNR raises the number of antlerless tags to offset that.Its a circle that has no benifit for Iowa.To prove my point,back in the early 90's we had deer number problems..no late rifle season.....no November antlerless season....no limitless antlerless tags in southern Iowa.Then The DRN started to allow NR deer hunting.1000's of acres were bought up by NRs and not many deer were taken off those acres.The problems started.I seriously believe that all the problems we have with the deer herd in 2010 funnel back to when NR were allowed to hunt here.
Limb Chicken
Active Member
They did change the limits. Possession on Leech is 4. The majority of the lobbying came from resort owners as I understand it. Have a cabin on Stoney and have never, and will never, tell the residents up there how to run things. I will play by the rules set by the DNR and if I don't like it will find good walleye fishing else where. They aren't that difficult to find. Comparing fishing to hunting whitetails is silly. The majority of fishing in Minnesota is done on public waters. The majority of hunting in Iowa is done on private farms. Apples to Oranges.
Hardwood11
It is going to be a good fall!
Archery95---I will spend close to $200 in two days just to shed hunt starting this weekend. Two nights in a motel, meals, beer, all going to Osceola, Iowa businesses.
Hey, I'm not saying it is a perfect comparison, but I am just pointing out that there is another side to this argument.
For the most part I rarely hear anyone complain when non-residents fish our lakes in my area, they are welcome and sometimes they even buy insurance from me!
Hey, I'm not saying it is a perfect comparison, but I am just pointing out that there is another side to this argument.
For the most part I rarely hear anyone complain when non-residents fish our lakes in my area, they are welcome and sometimes they even buy insurance from me!